Trump has made a deal with the devil; neocon foreign policies in return for backing on the domestic front

In the past few days, it became quite clear to me that Donald Trump made a deal with the Neocons in Washington. He traded part of his domestic agenda for ceding control of foreign policy to the D.C. establishment.

It’s obvious when you connect the dots. Signing the sanctions bill, the non-shift in Afghanistan policy, the tit-for-tat diplomatic aggression with Russia, weapons to Ukraine, etc. I’ve written extensively about this. Graham is suddenly touting his Obamacare replacement bill.

But, taking Graham at his word what this means is that the whole repeal vote was nothing more than a setup, because in no way could they have put this together in the last few weeks.

Therefore, this was held back from Trump and the rest of Congress for the purpose of finalizing a number of foreign policy initiatives that Trump was hostile to, namely expanded sanctions on Russia and Iran and a troop surge in Afghanistan.

Remember, Graham said after Trump’s Afghanistan speech (cribbed almost verbatim from previous speeches made by National Security Advisor Gen. H. R. McMaster) that he was finally proud of his President.

These moves make sense only if you realize that Lindsay Graham and John McCain ran an operation on Trump that was all about regaining control of foreign policy at any cost. And the costs were enormous.

It goes farther than Obamacare. We’re talking tax cuts now. Graham also withheld crucial information about former FBI Director James Comey’s conduct during his investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server last year.

And this may give Trump enough room to cut a deal with the GOP to pardon Julian Assange to corroborate Hillary’s crimes as Secretary of State. And all of that, in the end, is to the good. I’ll believe it when I see it but there’s the strong chance that a number of prominent people from the Obama administration and the DNC could wind up in jail.

Neutering Trump

Now, that said, none of that is important. Because what is important is Trump’s neutering as a change agent for foreign policy. You can disagree with me all you want but I do believe Trump was sincere in his desire to change the course of U.S. policy in Central Asia and Europe.

If he wasn’t then the U.S. ‘Deep State’ wouldn’t have been so apoplectic at his election. They wouldn’t have spent so much political capital in trying to rein him in. As that nexus, Trump has served us valuably.

Because now these people have been unmasked as to just how vile and depraved they truly are to a huge swath of the American public. Trump, like Putin in Russia, will be able to play the victim card here. He’ll be able to say that this is all an external attack on him by traitors in the GOP.

He can still go to his base and weakly sell the Neocon’s agenda because that’s part of the deal.

But, it will ring false.

And very few in the base will believe it.

Moreover, many of them will gladly take tax relief and Obamacare repeal (or do I repeat myself?) for a few more thousand troops in Afghanistan and open conflict in Ukraine. Sad to say, but all politics stops at the water’s edge here in the States.

So, Trump will stump for reformers. He’ll focus on domestic improvements. And he’ll let them own foreign policy. Most Americans simply don’t care. And the GOP handing him domestic wins (which are necessary) plays to his long-term survival. Remember Reagan.

Trump is not about to go to bat for Jeff Flake in Arizona. He’ll take the wins handed to him and play them for what they are worth while looking to the mid-terms and beyond.

Because if Lindsay Graham and John McCain think the old-guard, “uniparty” GOP leadership will survive the next three years, they are kidding themselves. The visceral hatred of these men here in the U.S. is beyond palpable.

What happens next, unfortunately, is not good. We will have to suffer another couple of years of insane foreign policy from Washington. Russia will be treated like the world’s biggest leper colony while Putin, Xi and the rest of the opposition make strategic moves to divest themselves of Washington.

The Neocons will lash out everywhere. In fact, they are doing so right now. Winning makes you sloppy. Simply note the desperation of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in the past two weeks to see how things are changing now that Syria is effectively settled.

Things are not as bad as they seem. Because with the military effectively running foreign policy in the White House there is little chance of a major war. This is the difference between having men who have seen battle making policy and those who only dream of it.

And when push comes to shove and Graham et.al. push too far, I have faith that Putin will step up and force the issue to its crisis, like he did in Syria multiple times. And that’s how this insanity ends. But, that’s not today.

lundi, 14 mars 2016

Although I fully share the jubilation of others that Donald Trump may be taking a wrecking ball to the GOP establishment, I don’t hold the view that Trump’s candidacy will reduce neoconservative power. Matthew Richer, Justin Raimondo and other writers whose columns I usually welcome all believe that Trump’s rise as a Republican presidential candidate may help bring down his bogus conservative enemies. The more Trump’s popular support soars, the more the neocons have supposedly turned themselves into paper tigers. The establishment Republicans whom they “advise” have not marginalized Trump; nor have the neocons and their clients been able to elevate as GOP frontrunner someone who serves their purposes. The fact that prominent neocons like Robert Kagan have indicated their willingness to vote for Hillary Clinton instead of a GOP presidential candidate they don’t want, has underscored the emptiness of their opposition to Mrs. Clinton. The neoconservatives’ willingness to abandon the Republican side in the presidential race if they don’t get their way dramatizes their deviousness and arrogance. Presumably others will now abandon these power-hungry careerists and perpetual war mongers.

Unfortunately, I expect none of this to happen. Indeed it would not surprise me if the neocons exhibited the staying power of the Egyptian New Kingdom, which ruled Egypt for five hundred years (1570-1070 BC) despite such occasional setbacks as military defeats. What neoconservative publicists are now doing when they bait and switch, does not seem different from what they did in the past. Prominent neocons have not consistently taken the side of eventually victorious Republican presidential candidates. In 1972 Nathan Glazer, Daniel Bell and other neocon heavyweights backed McGovern against Nixon, yet neocon and Democrat Daniel Moynihan carried great weight in the Nixon administration. In the presidential primaries in 1976 Irving Kristol and most other Republican neocons backed Gerald Ford against Ronald Reagan; nonetheless, after Reagan’s victory in 1980 neoconservatives William Bennett and Eliot Abrams came to play highly visible roles in the Republican administration.

Conceivably even if Robert Kagan and his friends support Hillary Clinton against Trump, they would still remain prominent, well-connected “conservatives.” The neoconservatives’ power and influence do not depend on their willingness to march in lockstep with the GOP. Their power base extends into both parties; and if most neocons are currently identified with the “moderate” wing of the GOP, providing their political ambitions are met and their foreign policy is carried out, other recognizable neocons like William Galston, Kagan’s wife Victoria Nuland, and Ann Applebaum have identified strongly with Democratic administrations. Neoconservatives will not likely cease to be part of the political and journalistic establishment, even if some in their ranks chose to back Hillary against the Donald.

Even less likely, will they cease to be a shaping force in a “conservative movement” that remains mostly under their wing. Since the 1980s neoconservatives have been free to push that movement in their own direction, toward a neo-Wilsonian foreign policy, toward the defense of what they celebrate as a “democratic capitalist welfare state” and toward a gradual acceptance of leftist social positions, as being less vital to “conservatism” than “national defense.” Neoconservatives demand that the government be pro-active in relation to the rest of the world. They and those politicians they train speak of “leading from the front” and place special emphasis on the protection of Israel and continued American intervention in “trouble spots” across the globe.

Neoconservatives have their own characteristic American nationalism, which is based on both energetic involvement in the affairs of other states and calls for further immigration, which now comes mostly from the Third World. Both of these foundational positions are justified on the grounds that American identity rests on a creed, which stresses universal equality. Most anyone from anywhere can join the American nation by adopting the neocons’ preferred creed; and once here these “new Americans, “ it is argued, will become hardy defenders of our propositional nationhood while providing the cheap labor needed for economic growth. Perhaps most importantly, neocons have no trouble attracting corporate donors, who hold their views on immigration and their fervent Zionism. Australian newspaper baron Rupert Murdoch, who finances their media outlets, has been particularly generous to his neoconservative clients but is far from their only benefactor.

The hundreds of millions of dollars that are poured into neoconservative or neoconservative-friendly policy institutes annually are not likely to dry up in the foreseeable future. A meeting just held on Sea Island off the coast of Georgia for the purpose of devising and executing a plan to bring down Trump, included, according to Pat Buchanan, all the usual suspects. Neocon journalist Bill Kristol,, executives of neocon policy institute AEI, and Republican bigwigs and politicians were all conspicuously represented at this gathering of the “conservative “ in-crowd , and gargantuan sums of money were pledged to destroy the reputation of someone whom the attendees hoped to destroy.

If the neocons were falling, certainly they are hiding their descent well. Finally, there seems to be a continuing congruence between the liberal internationalism preached by neoconservatives and such architects of America’s foreign policy as the Council on Foreign Relations. Although the Old Right and libertarians may lament these troublemakers, the neoconservatives do not labor alone in imposing their will. They are the most out-front among those calling for an aggressive American internationalism; and this has been a dominant stance among American foreign policy elites for at least a century.

It is hard to imagine that the neocons will lose these assets because they’ve been branding Trump a fascist or because they’re unwilling to back the GOP presidential candidate, no matter who he or she is. Powerbrokers in their own right, they don’t have to worry about passing litmus tests. They enjoy unbroken control of the “conservative movement,” and benefit from the demonstrable inability of a more genuine Right to displace them. Matthew Richer asks whether Donald Trump’s election would spell “the end of NR’s influence over the conservative movement in America.” The answer is an emphatic no, unless those who distribute the funding for the neoconservative media empire decide to close down this particular fixture. Otherwise Rich Lowry and his buds will go on being funded as agents for disseminating neocon party lines.

Moreover, those featured in NR‘s printed issues and/or on its widely visited website are routinely invited on to Fox-news and contribute to other interlocking neoconservative enterprises. Rich Lowry and Jonah Goldberg will not be thrown out of work, because they dumped toxic waste on Trump. And Max Boot will not lose his position at the WSJ because of his over-the-top tirades against Trump, after having railed non-stop for several weeks against Confederate monuments and Confederate Battle Flags. There is nothing the neocons say when they’re reaching leftward or revealing their leftist colors that the leftist media aren’t also saying, even more stridently. Pointing out the silliness of neoconservative assertions about history or the current age may help us deal with our irritation. It does not mean that we can dissuade those who fund the neoconservatives from giving them more money. They are being kept around not for their wisdom or the elegance of their prose but because they are useful to the powerful and rich.

Finally I should observe that the neocons have done so well in marginalizing their opposition on the right that it seems unlikely, as George Hawley points out in Right-Wing Critics of the Conservative Movement (University of Kansas, 2016), that the balance of power between the two sides is about to change. How exactly will a genuine Right that has not been contaminated by the neocons gain enough influence to replace them? How can such a Right, given its modest circumstances, even compete with the neocons for access to the public and for friends in high places?

The neocons would never yield ground to competitors on the right. Indeed they have fought them so relentlessly, because they view them as nothing less carriers of anti-Semitism and other things that the neocons fear. Further, leftist allies would join the neocons in preventing our side from ever gaining ground. And this kind of alliance has worked well before, e.g., when the neocons made their opposition disappear with an assist from the Left in the 1980s and early 1990s. Although there are isolated journalists like Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan who resist the neocons from the Right while enjoying prominence, these are the exceptions. Most of those who attack the neocons from the right languish in relative obscurity. Indeed most right-wing critics of the neoconservatives, as Hawley underscores, have been effectively removed from media visibility. This isolation suits the regular Left as it does the Left’s more moderate neoconservative wing.

To those who hope to see the neocons swept from power as Donald Trump and his backers prosper politically, I am offering the sobering message that your expectations are unrealistic. Although the neoconservatives can be challenged from the Right, such a challenge can only work on the media level if the would-be counterforce is as well-equipped as what it’s fighting. Simply saying that the neocons are losing ground or are now in freefall won’t make one’s wish come to pass. Needless to say, I’d be delighted if proven wrong in this matter.

mardi, 15 décembre 2015

My warning that the neoconservatives have resurrected the threat of nuclear Armageddon, which was removed by Reagan and Gorbachev, is also being given by Noam Chomsky, former US Secretary of Defense William Perry, and other sentient observers of the neoconservatives' aggressive policies toward Russia and China.

Daily we observe additional aggressive actions taken by Washington and its vassals against Russia and China. For example, Washington is pressuring Kiev not to implement the Minsk agreements designed to end the conflict between the puppet government in Kiev and the break-away Russian republics.

Washington refuses to cooperate with Russia in the war against ISIS. Washington continues to blame Russia for the destruction of MH-17, while preventing an honest investigation of the attack on the Malaysian airliner. Washington continues to force its European vassals to impose sanctions on Russia based on the false claim that the conflict in Ukraine was caused by a Russian invasion of Ukraine, not by Washington's coup in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a puppet answering to Washington.

The list is long. Even the International Monetary Fund (IMF), allegedly a neutral, non-political world organization, has been suborned into the fight against Russia. Under Washington's pressure, the IMF has abandoned its policy of refusing to lend to debtors who are in arrears in their loan payments to creditors. In the case of Ukraine's debt to Russia, this decision removes the enforcement mechanism that prevents countries (such as Greece) from defaulting on their debts. The IMF has announced that it will lend to Ukraine in order to pay the Ukraine's Western creditors despite the fact that Ukraine has renounced repayment of loans from Russia.

Michael Hudson believes, correctly in my view, that this new IMF policy will also be applied to those countries to whom China has made loans. The IMF's plan is to leave Russia and China as countries who lack the usual enforcement mechanism to collect from debtors, thus permitting debtors to default on the loans without penalty.

In other words, the IMF is presenting itself, although the financial media will not notice, as a tool of US foreign policy.

What this shows, and what should concern us, is that the institutions of Western civilization are in fact tools of American dominance. The institutions are not there for the noble reasons stated in their founding documents.

The bottom line is that Western Capitalism is simply a looting mechanism that has successfully suborned Western governments and all Western "do-good" institutions.

As in George Orwell's '1984', the IMF is dividing the world into warring factions — the West vs. the BRICS.

To avoid the coming conflict that the neoconservatives' pursuit of American hegemony is bringing, the Russians have relied on fact-based, truth-based diplomacy. However, neocon Washington relies on lies and propaganda and has many more and much louder voices. Consequently, it is Washington's lies, not Russia's truth, that most of the Western sheeple believe.

In other words, Russia was misled by believing that the West respects and abides by the values that it professes. In fact, these "Western values" are merely a cover for the unbridled evil of which the West consists.

The Western peoples are so dimwitted that they have not yet understand that the "war on terror" is, in fact, a war to create terror that can be exported to Muslim areas of Russia and China in order to destabilize the two countries that serve as a check on Washington's unilateral, hegemonic power.

The problem for the neocon unilateralists is that Russia and China-although misinformed by their "experts" educated abroad in the neoliberal tradtion, people who are de facto agents of Washington without even knowing it-are powerful military powers, both nuclear and conventional. Unless Russia and China are content to be Washington's vassal states, for the neoconservatives, who control Washington and, therefy, the West, to press these two powerful countries so hard can only lead to war. As Washington is not a match for Russia and China in conventional warfare, the war will be nuclear, and the result will be the end of life on earth.

Whether ironic or paradoxical, the US is pushing a policy that means the end of life. Yet, the majority of Western governments support it, and the insouciant Western peoples have no clue.

But Putin has caught on. Russia is not going to submit. Soon China will understand that US dependency on China's workforce and imports is not a protection from Washington's aggression. When China looks beyond its MIT and Harvard miseducated neoliberal economists to the writing on the wall, Washington is going to be in deep trouble.

What will Washington do? Confronted with two powerful nuclear militaries, will the crazed neocons back off? Or will their confidence in their ideology bring us the final war?

This is a real question. The US government pays many Internet trolls to ridicule such questions and their authors. To see the people who sell out humanity for money, all you have to do is to

read the comments on the numerous websites that reproduce this column.

Nevertheless, the question remains, unanswered by the Western presstitute media and unanswered by the bought-and-paid-for stooges in the US Congress and all Western "democracies."

Indications are that Russia has had enough of American arrogance. The Russian people have elevated a leader as they always do, and which Western countries seldom, if ever, do. The West has triumphed by technology, not by leadership. But Vladimir Putin is Russia's choice of a leader, and he is one. Russia also has the technology and a sense of itself that no longer exists in the diversified West.

There is nothing like Putin anywhere in the West, over which presides a collection of bought-and-paid-for-puppets who report to private interest groups, such as Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, the Israel Lobby, agribusiness, and the extractive industries (energy, mining, timber).

At the 70th Anniversary of the United Nations (September 28), Putin, backed by the President of China, announced that half of the world no longer accepts American unilateralism. Additionally, Putin said that Russia can no longer tolerate the state of affairs in the world that results from Washington's pursuit of hegemony.

Two days later Putin took over the fight against ISIS in Syria.

Putin, still relying on agreements with Washington, relied on the agreement that Russia would announce beforehand its attacks on ISIS installations in order to prevent any NATO-Russian air encounters. Washington took advantage of this trust placed in Washington by Russia, and arranged for a Turkish jet fighter to ambush an unsuspecting Russian fighter-bomber.

This was an act of war, committed by Washington and Turkey, and thereby Washington's European NATO vassal states against a nuclear power capable of exterminating all life in every one of the countries, including the "superpower US."

This simple fact should make even the American super-patriots, who wear the flag on their sleeve, wonder about the trust they place in "their" government and in Fox "news," CNN, NPR, and the rest of the presstitutes who continually lie every minute of every broadcast.

But it won't. Americans and Europeans are too insouciant. They are locked tightly in The Matrix, where the impotent creatures are content to live without understanding reality.

Realizing that it is pointless to attempt to communicate to the Western sheeple, who have no input into their government's policy, Putin now sends his message directly to Washington.

Putin's message is loud and clear in his order directed against any US/NATO operations against Russia in its Syrian operations against ISIS:

Any targets threatening the Russian groups of forces or land infrastructure must be immediately destroyed.

Putin followed up this order with another order to the Russian Defense Ministry Board:

Special attention must be paid to strengthening the combat potential of the strategic nuclear forces and implementing defense space programs. It is necessary, as outlined in our plans, to equip all components of the nuclear triad with new arms.

Russia's Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu reported at the Defense Ministry meeting that 56 percent of Russia's nuclear forces are new and that 95 percent are at a permanent state of readiness. The few Western news sources that report these developments pretend that Russia is "saber-rattling" without cause.

To make it clear even for the insouciant Western populations, everything that Reagan and Gorbachev worked for has been overthrown by crazed, demented, evil American neoconservatives whose desire for hegemony over the world is driving the world to extinction.

These are the same bloodthirsty war criminals who have destroyed seven countries, murdered, maimed, and displaced millions of Muslim peoples, and sent millions of refugees from the neocon wars into Europe. None of these war criminals are protected from terrorist attack. If the alleged "Muslim threat" was real, every one of the war criminals would be dead by now, not the innocent people sitting in Paris cafes or attending parties in California.

Neocons are the unhumans who created on purpose the "war against terror" in order to gain a weapon against Russia and China. You can witness these unhumans every day on talk TV and read them in the Weekly Standard, National Review, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the British, German, Australian, Canadian, and endless Western newspapers.

In the West lies prevail, and the lies are driving the world to extinction. An expert reminds us that it only takes one mistake and 30 minutes to destroy life on earth.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

This decree means that any property belonging to Dugin that is within reach of the Soyuz (aka the country formerly known as the United States of America) is subject to forfeiture, and US citizens who do business with the professor will face criminal prosecution under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

What did Dugin – a so-called “mad professor” who will inevitably be portrayed on film by Russell Crowe — do that merits this designation? He holds no government position, nor is he the chieftain of a private criminal syndicate. Dugin, an outspoken Russian nationalist, has been depicted as a species of terrorist – the intellectual leader of a “revisionist” movement in Russia.

It is his use of the written and spoken word that provoked the outrage of the Trotskyites controlling Washington’s war-making apparatus. Dugin’s heretical rejection of Washington’s imperial rule-set made him “one of the most dangerous people on the planet,” according to noted geostrategic analyst Glenn Beck.

In other words, Dugin – a citizen of a country with which the United States is not formally at war – was targeted for economic punishment as a thought criminal. He should consider himself fortunate that he hasn’t yet been targeted for a drone strike.

According to the OFAC, sanctions against Dugin and a dozen other figures were necessary in order to “hold accountable those responsible for violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

“Without question, the peoples of the socialist countries and the Communist parties have and must have freedom to determine their country’s path of development,” explained Brezhnev in a sentence pregnant with the word “however.”

“Any decisions they make, however” – there it is! – “must not be harmful either to socialism in their own country or to the fundamental interests of other socialist countries…. Whoever forgets this in giving exclusive emphasis to the autonomy and independence of Communist parties is guilty of a one-sided approach, and of shirking their internationalist duties…. The sovereignty of individual socialist countries cannot be set against the interests of world socialism and the world revolutionary movement.”

The ruling elite in Washington and the EU see developments in Ukraine in the same light. The coup that ousted the country’s elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, was a responsible exercise in “internationalism”; the plebiscite that led to Crimean secession, by way of contrast, was an offense against the “world revolutionary movement” that must be punished through mass bloodshed.

Brezhnevite language was recited by US Commissar for War Chuck Hagel during a surrealistic speech last October in which he claimed that the US and NATO “must deal with a revisionist Russia – with its modern and capable army – on NATO’s doorstep.”

“It wasn’t NATO that was ordering tons of tactical battalions and army to the Ukraine border,” Kirby declared.

“I am pretty sure that Ukraine is not a member of NATO – unless that’s changed,” Lee pointed out, while trying, without success, to get Kirby to admit the obvious fact that “You are moving closer to Russia and you’re blaming the Russians for being close to NATO.”

Kirby began his exercise in baroque double-speak saying that Russia’s “intentions and motives” displayed an effort to call back “the glory days of the Soviet Union.” He ended by accusing Russia of aggression by moving troops within its own borders in response to US-abetted violence within a neighboring country.

There is nothing novel about Soviet-grade semantic engineering of this kind by a Pentagon spokesliar. In a November 2005 press conference, Donald Rumsfeld, who at the time was Chief Commissar for Aggression and Occupation — or, as the position is more commonly known, Secretary of Defense – described what he called an “epiphany” regarding the resistance to the Regime’s humanitarian errand in Iraq.

“This is a group of people who don’t merit the word `insurgency,’ I think,”Comrade Rumsfeld pontificated. “I think that you can have a legitimate insurgency in a country that has popular support and has a cohesiveness and has a legitimate gripe. This people don’t have a legitimate gripe.”

This, too, was a familiar theme in Brezhnev-era official cant: Once the forces of “progress” have taken control of a country, all resistance is “counter-revolutionary,” because nobody could have a legitimate grievance.

“The American people [have their] own traditions, habits, values, ideals, options and beliefs that are their own,” he continues. “These grant to everybody the right to be different, to choose freely, to be what one wants to be and can be or become. It is a wonderful feature. It gives strength and pride, self-esteem and assurance. We Russians admire that.”

Unfortunately, Dugin continues, the American political elite have their own version of the Brezhnev Doctrine under which respect for “diversity” is limited by the “international obligations” imposed by the Empire.

“The American political elite, above all on an international level, act quite contrary to [American] values,” Dugin asserts. “They insist on conformity and regard the American way of life as something universal and obligatory.”

Most Americans, Dugin correctly surmises, “sincerely think that the Russian nation was born with Communism, with the Soviet Union. But that is a total misconception. We are much older than that. The Soviet period was just a short epoch in our long history. We existed before the Soviet Union and we are existing after the Soviet Union.”

Ukraine, from Dugin’s perspective, is defined by a “multiplicity of identities,” the most important of which, to him, is Kiev’s role in the “genesis” of the Russian people. Eastern and western Ukraine, he contends, is historically and culturally part of “Greater Russia.” Contemporary Kiev and the western section of the country are more congenial to the West.

Apart from the ideological demands (and crony capitalist interests) of Washington and the EU, there is no reason why Ukraine cannot peacefully devolve into two or more political entities. The alternative is continuing, and escalating, the US-abetted civil war that increasingly appears to be a preliminary round in what could become a direct military conflict between Washington and Moscow.

“We have no thoughts of, or desire to, hurt America,” Dugin insists. “You want to be free. You and all others deserve it. But what the hell are you doing in the capital of ancient Russia, Victoria Nuland? Why do you intervene in our domestic affairs?… Any honest American calmly studying the case will arrive at the conclusion: `Let them decide for themselves. We are not similar to these strange and wild Russians, but let them go their own way. And we are going to go our own way.’”

Merely to suggest such a non-interventionist posture, Brezhnev’s disciples in Washington would object, is to “shirk our internationalist duties.”

“The American political elite has another agenda,” Dugin correctly observes. It is “to provoke wars, to mix in regional conflicts, to incite the hatred of different ethnic groups. The American political elite sacrifices the American people to causes that are far from you, vague, uncertain, and finally very, very bad…. They lie about us. And they lie about you. They give you a distorted image of yourself. The American political elite has stolen, perverted and counterfeited the American identity. And they make us hate you and they make you hate us.”

Dugin offers an alternative approach:

“Let us hate the American political elite together. Let us fight them for our identities – you for the American, us for the Russian, but the enemy in both cases is the same, the global oligarchy who rules the world using you and smashing us. Let us revolt. Let us resist. Together. Russians and Americans. We are the people. We are not their puppets.”

Sober and responsible people might find elements of Dugin’s worldview – and some of his past associations — troubling or even repellent while finding his prognosis of current affairs to be sound and compelling.

One need not endorse what Dugin would like to build in his own country in order to appreciate the truths he tells about the people who are orchestrating a war that could destroy both our country and his. And the means used to criminalize Dugin for giving voice to impermissible thoughts is irrefutable proof that Washington, not Moscow, is home to the true heirs of Lenin’s totalitarian vision.

mercredi, 26 mars 2014

Neocons’ Ukraine-Syria-Iran Gambit

You might think that policymakers with so many bloody fiascos on their résumés as the U.S. neocons, including the catastrophic Iraq War, would admit their incompetence and return home to sell insurance or maybe work in a fast-food restaurant. Anything but directing the geopolitical decisions of the world’s leading superpower.

But Official Washington’s neocons are nothing if not relentless and resilient. They are also well-funded and well-connected. So they won’t do the honorable thing and disappear. They keep hatching new schemes and strategies to keep the world stirred up and to keep their vision of world domination – and particularly “regime change” in the Middle East – alive.

Now, the neocons have stoked a confrontation over Ukraine, involving two nuclear-armed states, the United States and Russia. But – even if nuclear weapons don’t come into play – the neocons have succeeded in estranging U.S. President Barack Obama from Russian President Vladimir Putin and sabotaging the pair’s crucial cooperation on Iran and Syria, which may have been the point all along.

Though the Ukraine crisis has roots going back decades, the chronology of the recent uprising — and the neocon interest in it – meshes neatly with neocon fury over Obama and Putin working together to avert a U.S. military strike against Syria last summer and then brokering an interim nuclear agreement with Iran last fall that effectively took a U.S. bombing campaign against Iran off the table.

With those two top Israeli priorities – U.S. military attacks on Syria and Iran – sidetracked, the American neocons began activating their influential media and political networks to counteract the Obama-Putin teamwork. The neocon wedge to splinter Obama away from Putin was driven into Ukraine.

Operating out of neocon enclaves in the U.S. State Department and at U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations, led by the National Endowment for Democracy, neocon operatives targeted Ukraine even before the recent political unrest began shaking apart the country’s fragile ethnic and ideological cohesion.

Last September, as the prospects for a U.S. military strike against Syria were fading thanks to Putin, NED president Carl Gershman, who is something of a neocon paymaster controlling more than $100 million in congressionally approved funding each year, took to the pages of the neocon-flagship Washington Post and wrote that Ukraine was now “the biggest prize.”

But Gershman added that Ukraine was really only an interim step to an even bigger prize, the removal of the strong-willed and independent-minded Putin, who, Gershman added, “may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad [i.e. Ukraine] but within Russia itself.” In other words, the new hope was for “regime change” in Kiev and Moscow.

Putin had made himself a major annoyance in Neocon World, particularly with his diplomacy on Syria that defused a crisis over a Sarin attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013. Despite the attack’s mysterious origins – and the absence of any clear evidence proving the Syrian government’s guilt – the U.S. State Department and the U.S. news media rushed to the judgment that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad did it.

Politicians and pundits baited Obama with claims that Assad had brazenly crossed Obama’s “red line” by using chemical weapons and that U.S. “credibility” now demanded military retaliation. A longtime Israeli/neocon goal, “regime change” in Syria, seemed within reach.

But Putin brokered a deal in which Assad agreed to surrender Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal (even as he continued to deny any role in the Sarin attack). The arrangement was a huge letdown for the neocons and Israeli officials who had been drooling over the prospect that a U.S. bombing campaign would bring Assad to his knees and deliver a strategic blow against Iran, Israel’s current chief enemy.

Putin then further offended the neocons and the Israeli government by helping to facilitate an interim nuclear deal with Iran, making another neocon/Israeli priority, a U.S. war against Iran, less likely.

Putting Putin in Play

So, the troublesome Putin had to be put in play. And, NED’s Gershman was quick to note a key Russian vulnerability, neighboring Ukraine, where a democratically elected but corrupt president, Viktor Yanukovych, was struggling with a terrible economy and weighing whether to accept a European aid offer, which came with many austerity strings attached, or work out a more generous deal with Russia.

There was already a strong U.S.-organized political/media apparatus in place for destabilizing Ukraine’s government. Gershman’s NED had 65 projects operating in the country – training “activists,” supporting “journalists” and organizing business groups, according to its latest report. (NED was created in 1983 to do in relative openness what the CIA had long done in secret, nurture pro-U.S. operatives under the umbrella of “promoting democracy.”)

So, when Yanukovych opted for Russia’s more generous $15 billion aid package, the roof fell in on him. In a speech to Ukrainian business leaders last December, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Victoria Nuland, a neocon holdover and the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan, reminded the group that the U.S. had invested $5 billion in Ukraine’s “European aspirations.”

Then, urged on by Nuland and neocon Sen. John McCain, protests in the capital of Kiev turned increasingly violent with neo-Nazi militias moving to the fore. Unidentified snipers opened fire on protesters and police, touching off fiery clashes that killed some 80 people (including about a dozen police officers).

On Feb. 21, in a desperate attempt to tamp down the violence, Yanukovych signed an agreement brokered by European countries. He agreed to surrender many of his powers, to hold early elections (so he could be voted out of office), and pull back the police. That last step, however, opened the way for the neo-Nazi militias to overrun government buildings and force Yanukovych to flee for his life.

With these modern-day storm troopers controlling key buildings – and brutalizing Yanukovych supporters – a rump Ukrainian parliament voted, in an extra-constitutional fashion, to remove Yanukovych from office. This coup-installed regime, with far-right parties controlling four ministries including defense, received immediate U.S. and European Union recognition as Ukraine’s “legitimate” government.

As remarkable – and newsworthy – as it was that a government on the European continent included Nazis in the executive branch for the first time since World War II, the U.S. news media performed as it did before the Iraq War and during various other international crises. It essentially presented the neocon-preferred narrative and treated the presence of the neo-Nazis as some kind of urban legend.

Virtually across the board, from Fox News to MSNBC, from the Washington Post to the New York Times, the U.S. press corps fell in line, painting Yanukovych and Putin as the “black-hat” villains and the coup regime as the “white-hat” good guys, which required, of course, whiting out the neo-Nazi “brown shirts.”

Neocon Expediency

Some neocon defenders have challenged my reporting that U.S. neocons played a significant role in the Ukrainian putsch. One argument is that the neocons, who regard the U.S.-Israeli bond as inviolable, would not knowingly collaborate with neo-Nazis given the history of the Holocaust (and indeed the role of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators in extermination campaigns against Poles and Jews).

But the neocons have frequently struck alliances of convenience with some of the most unsavory – and indeed anti-Semitic – forces on earth, dating back to the Reagan administration and its collaboration with Latin American “death squad” regimes, including work with the World Anti-Communist League that included not only neo-Nazis but aging real Nazis.

More recently in Syria, U.S. neocons (and Israeli leaders) are so focused on ousting Assad, an ally of hated Iran, that they have cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s Sunni monarchy (known for its gross anti-Semitism). Israeli officials have even expressed a preference for Saudi-backed Sunni extremists winning in Syria if that is the only way to get rid of Assad and hurt his allies in Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

Last September, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post that Israel so wanted Assad out and his Iranian backers weakened, that Israel would accept al-Qaeda operatives taking power in Syria.

“The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc,” Oren said in the interview. “We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”

Oren said that was Israel’s view even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda.

Oren, who was Israel’s point man in dealing with Official Washington’s neocons, is considered very close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and reflects his views. For decades, U.S. neocons have supported Netanyahu and his hardline Likud Party, including as strategists on his 1996 campaign for prime minister when neocons such as Richard Perle and Douglas Feith developed the original “regime change” strategy. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War.”]

In other words, Israel and its U.S. neocon supporters have been willing to collaborate with extreme right-wing and even anti-Semitic forces if that advances their key geopolitical goals, such as maneuvering the U.S. government into military confrontations with Syria and Iran.

So, while it may be fair to assume that neocons like Nuland and McCain would have preferred that the Ukraine coup had been spearheaded by militants who weren’t neo-Nazis – or, for that matter, that the Syrian rebels were not so dominated by al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists – the neocons (and their Israeli allies) see these tactical collaborations as sometimes necessary to achieve overarching strategic priorities.

And, since their current strategic necessity is to scuttle the fragile negotiations over Syria and Iran, which otherwise might negate the possibility of U.S. military strikes against those two countries, the Putin-Obama collaboration had to go.

By spurring on the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s elected president, the neocons helped touch off a cascade of events – now including Crimea’s secession from Ukraine and its annexation by Russia – that have raised tensions and provoked Western retaliation against Russia. The crisis also has made the continued Obama-Putin teamwork on Syria and Iran extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Like other neocon-engineered schemes, there will surely be much collateral damage in this latest one. For instance, if the tit-for-tat economic retaliations escalate – and Russian gas supplies are disrupted – Europe’s fragile recovery could be tipped back into recession, with harmful consequences for the U.S. economy, too.

There’s also the certainty that congressional war hawks and neocon pundits will press for increased U.S. military spending and aggressive tactics elsewhere in the world to punish Putin, meaning even less money and attention for domestic programs or deficit reduction. Obama’s “nation-building at home” will be forgotten.

But the neocons have long made it clear that their vision for the world – one of America’s “full-spectrum dominance” and “regime change” in Middle Eastern countries opposed to Israel – overrides all other national priorities. And as long as the neocons face no accountability for the havoc that they wreak, they will continue working Washington’s corridors of power, not selling insurance or flipping hamburgers.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

Paul Gottfried’s admirable book on Leo Strauss is an unusual and welcome critique from the Right.

Leo Strauss (1899–1973) was a German-born Jewish political theorist who moved to the United States in 1937. Strauss taught at the New School for Social Research in New York City before moving to the University of Chicago, where he was Robert Maynard Hutchins Distinguished Service Professor until his retirement in 1969. In the familiar pattern of Jewish intellectual movements as diverse of Psychoanalysis, Marxism, and Objectivism, Strauss was a charismatic teacher who founded a cultish school of thought, the Straussians, which continues to this day to spread his ideas and influence throughout academia, think tanks, the media, and the government.

As Gottfried points out, the Straussians tend only to engage their critics on the Left. This makes sense, since their Leftist critics raise the cultural visibility of the Straussian school. The critics are also easily defeated, which raises Straussian credibility as well. Like all debates within the parameters of Jewish hegemony, the partisans in the Strauss wars share a whole raft of assumptions which are never called into question. Thus these controversies look somewhat farcical and managed to those who reject liberalism and Jewish hegemony root and branch.

Gottfried offers a far more penetrating critique of Straussianism because he is a genuine critic of liberalism. He is also surprisingly frank about Strauss’s Jewish identity and motives, although these matters come into crisper focus in Kevin MacDonald’s treatment[8] of Strauss. Gottfried’s volume is slender, clearly written, and closely argued—although his arguments tend to be overly involved. Gottfried presupposes a basic knowledge of Strauss. He also talks as much about Straussians as about Strauss himself. Thus this book cannot be used as an introduction to Strauss’s ideas—unlike Shadia Drury’s The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss[9] (New York: Saint Martins Press, 1988), for instance.

Gottfried strives to be scrupulously fair. He acknowledges the genuine intellectual virtues of Strauss and some of his followers. He distinguishes between good and bad writings by Strauss, good and bad Straussians, good and bad writings by bad Straussians, etc. But for all these careful qualifications, the net impression left by this book is that Straussians are an obnoxious academic cult engaged in a massive ethnically motivated intellectual fraud, to the detriment of higher education, the conservative movement, and American politics in general.

1. Straussians are Not Conservatives

Straussians like to posture as beleaguered intellectual and political outsiders. But Strauss and his school are very much an establishment phenomenon, with professorships at elite institutions, including Harvard and Yale, regular access to major university and academic presses (Yale, Chicago, and Cornell for the first stringers, SUNY, Saint Augustine’s Press, and Rowman and Littlefield for the rest), and a cozy relationship with the flagships of the “liberal” media the New York Times and the Washington Post.

This favored position is due largely to the strongly Jewish character of Straussian thought and of most Straussians. The Straussians are one of the major vectors by which Jewish hegemony was established over American conservatism. They are promoted by the Jewish establishment as a “safe” alternative to the Left. But they are a false alternative, since there is nothing conservative about the Straussians. Most Straussians are promoters of the welfare state, racial integration, non-white immigration, and an abstract “creedal” conception of American identity—the same basic agenda as the Jewish Left.

Where the Straussians depart from the Left is their bellicose “Schmittian” political realism. They recognize that enmity is a permanent feature of political life, and they fight to win. Although Straussians cloak their aims in universal terms like “liberal democracy,” the common thread running through their politics from Cold War liberalism to present-day neoconservatism is an entirely parochial form of ethnic nationalism, namely using the United States and Europe to fight on behalf of Israel and the Jewish diaspora world-wide.

As Jews in exile, Straussians prefer that the United States be a liberal democracy, a universal, propositional society that does not exclude them from power and influence. But since the world is a dangerous place, Straussians prefer the United States to be a militant, crusading liberal democracy, as long as its blood and treasure are spent advancing Jewish interests in Israel and around the globe.

Since the American Right contains strong militarist tendencies, Strauss and his followers regarded it as a natural ally. It was child’s play, really, for the Straussians to take over the post-World War II American Right, in which a glib, shallow poseur like William F. Buckley could pass as an intellectual leader. All the Straussians needed to do was assume “a certain right-wing style without expressing a right-wing worldview” (p. 115).

Once inside the Right-wing camp, the Straussians worked to marginalize any nativist, isolationist, identitarian, racialist, and genuinely conservative tendencies—any tendencies that might lead Americans to see Jews as outsiders and Israel as a questionable ally. Gottfried sums up Strauss’s project nicely:

As a refugee from a German movement once identified with the far Right and as someone who never quite lost his sense of Jewish marginality, Strauss was anxious about the “festering dissatisfaction” on the American Right. A patriotic, anticommunist conservatism, one that was open to the concerns of Strauss and his followers, could lessen this anxiety about Right-wing extremism. Such a contrived Right would not locate itself on the nativist or traditional nationalist Right, nor would it be closed to progressive winds in the direction of the civil rights revolution that was then taking off. But it would be anti-Soviet and emphatically pro-Zionist. In a nutshell, it would be Cold War liberalism, with patriotic fanfare. (p. 120)

Of course the Straussians did not gain the power to remake the American Right along Jewish lines merely through merit. Like other Jewish intellectual movements, the Straussians’ preferred method of advancement is not rational debate but the indoctrination of the impressionable, the slow infiltration of institutions, and then, when their numbers are sufficient to cement control, the purge of dissidents within and the exclusion of dissidents without. Gottfried has been observing the Straussian takeover of the American Right for decades. He has seen his own ambitions, and the ambitions of other conservatives, checked by Straussian operatives.

Straussians make a cult of great “statesmen” like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill. But, as Gottfried points out, “From the standpoint of . . . older [American] republicanism, Lincoln, and other Straussian heroes were dangerous centralizers and levelers, certainly not paradigms of great statesmanship” (p. 111). There is nothing distinctly conservative about the warmongering of Straussian neoconservatives:

Fighting wars for universal, egalitarian propositions was never a priority for authoritarian conservatives like Antonio Salazar or Francisco Franco. Nor is this type of crusade an activity that one might associate with American conservative isolationists like Robert Taft. It is an expression of progressive militarism, a form of principled belligerence that French Jacobinism, Wilsonianism, and wars of communist liberation have all exemplified at different times. (p. 116)

Some Straussian apologists argue that Strauss and the neoconservatives are two very different things. Of course not all Straussians are neoconservatives, and not all neoconservatives are Straussians. But nobody argues for such simplistic claims. Gottfried devotes an entire chapter to the neoconservative connection, arguing that “the nexus between neoconservatism and Straussians is so tight that it may be impossible to dissociate the two groups in any significant way” (p. 9).

Of course, the Straussians and neoconservatives need to be understood in the larger context of Jewish hegemony, and the more specific context of Jewish subversion of the American Right. The problem is not just the Straussians. Thus it could not be solved simply by purging Straussians from American life. The problem is the larger Jewish community and its will to dominate.

If Leo Strauss had never set foot on these shores, essentially the same process of Jewish subversion would have taken place, only the external details would be different. There were other sources of neoconservatism besides the Straussians: Zionist Trotskyites, for example. And long before the birth of neoconservatism, Jews were already at work redefining the American Right. For instance, George H. Nash documents extensive Jewish involvement in the founding of National Review. (See George H. Nash, “Forgotten Godfathers: Premature Jewish Conservatives and the Rise of National Review,” American Jewish History, 87, nos. 2 & 3 [June–September 1999], pp. 123–57.)

2. The “Lockean Founding” of the United States

Gottfried is apparently attracted to the anti-rationalist Burkean tradition of conservatism, which in effect claims that history is smarter than reason, therefore, we should take our guidance from historically evolved institutions and conventions rather than rational constructs. This form of conservatism is, of course, dismissed by the Straussians as “historicism.” Gottfried counters that the Straussians

seek to ignore . . . the ethnic and cultural preconditions for the creation of political orders. Straussians focus on those who invent regimes because they wish to present the construction of government as an open-ended, rationalist process. All children of the Enlightenment, once properly instructed, should be able to carry out this constructivist task, given enough support from the American government or American military. (pp. 3–4)

In the American context, historicist conservatism stresses the Anglo-Protestant identity of American culture and institutions. This leads to skepticism about the ability of American institutions to assimilate immigrants from around the globe and the possibility of exporting American institutions to the rest of the world.

Moreover, a historicist Anglo-Protestant American conservatism, no matter how “Judaizing” its fixation on the Old Testament, would still regard Jews as outsiders. Thus Straussians, like other Jewish intellectual movements, have promoted an abstract, “propositional” conception of American identity. Of course, Gottfried himself is a Jew, but perhaps he has the intellectual integrity to base his philosophy on his arguments rather than his ethnic interests

(Catholic Straussians are equally hostile to an Anglo-Protestant conception of America, but while Jewish Straussians have changed American politics to suit their interests, Catholic Straussians have gotten nothing for their services but an opportunity to vent spleen against modernity.)

The Straussians’ preferred “Right-wing” form of propositional American identity is the idea that American was founded on Lockean “natural rights” liberalism. If America was founded on universal natural rights, then obviously it cannot exclude Jews, or refuse to grant freedom and equality to blacks, etc. The liberal, Lockean conception of the American founding is far older than Strauss and is defended primarily by Strauss’s followers Thomas L. Pangle in The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke[10] (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988) and Michael Zuckert Natural Rights and the New Republicanism[11] (Princeton University Press, 1994). Moreover, the Straussians argue that Locke was a religious skeptic, thus on the Straussian account, “The ‘American regime’ was a distinctly modernist and implicitly post-Christian project . . . whose Lockean founders considered religious concerns to be less important than individual material ones” (p. 39).

Lockean bourgeois liberalism is so dominant in America today that it is easy to think that it must have been that way at the founding as well. But this is false. Aside from the opening words of the Declaration of Independence—which were highly controversial among the signatories—and the marginal writings of Thomas Paine, Lockean natural rights talk played almost no role in the American founding, which was influenced predominantly by classical republicanism as reformulated by Machiavelli, Harrington, and Montesquieu (the thesis of J. G. A. Pocock’s The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition[12] [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975]) and Calvinist Christianity (the thesis of Barry Allan Shain’s The Myth of American Individualism: The Protestant Origins of American Political Thought[13] [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994]).

There is nothing distinctly Lockean about the American Constitution, and nothing particularly Constitutional about modern Lockean America. Liberals effectively refounded America by replacing the Constitution with Jefferson’s Lockean Declaration of Independence (which is not even a legal document of the United States). Daniel Webster (1782–1852) is the first figure I know of to promote this project, but surely he was not alone. The refounding is summed up perfectly by the opening of Straussian hero Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Gettysburg Address: “Four score and seven years ago [i.e., 1776] our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” The United States, of course, was founded by the US Constitution, which was written in 1787 and ratified in 1788 and which says nothing about universal human equality, but does treat Negroes as 3/5 of a person and Indians as foreign and hostile nations. But Lincoln was in the process of founding a new nation on the ruins of the Constitution as well as the Confederacy.

Straussians, of course, oppose both the classical republican and Anglo-Calvinist origins of the United States because both sources are tainted with particularist identities that exclude Jews. Gottfried doubts that the “organic communitarian democracy” defended by Carl Schmitt—and also by classical republicans and New England Calvinists, although Gottfried does not mention them in this context—would appeal to Strauss: “Outside of Israel, that is not a regime that Strauss would likely have welcomed” (p. 128). Jews can have an ethnostate in the Middle East, but they insist we live under inclusive, universal liberal democracies.

Incidentally, the North American New Right does not aim at a restoration of the Anglo-Protestant past, which has been pretty much liquidated by the universal solvents of capitalism and liberal democracy. The Anglo-American has been replaced by a blended European-American, although the core of our language, laws, and status system remains English. American “conservatism” has managed to conserve so little of the original American culture and stock that by the time New Rightist regimes might attain power, we will in effect be handed a blank slate for constructivist projects of our own design.

3. The “Return” to the Ancients

The Straussians are reputed by friend and foe alike to be advocates of a return to classical political philosophy, and perhaps even to classical political forms like the polis. Strauss and his students certainly have produced many studies of ancient philosophy, primarily Plato and Aristotle. The Straussians, moreover, have a definite pattern of praising the ancients and denigrating modernity.

Gottfried, however, demolishes this picture quite handily. We have already seen his argument that the Straussians are advocates of universalistic modern liberal democracy, not classical Republicanism or any other form of political particularism—except, of course, for Israel.

Beyond that, Gottfried argues that Straussians merely project Strauss’s own modern philosophical prejudices on the ancients. The method that licenses such wholesale interpretive projection and distortion is Strauss’s famous rediscovery of “esoteric” writing and reading. Strauss claims that under social conditions of intolerance, philosophers create texts with two teachings. The “exoteric” teaching, which is accommodated to socially dominant religious and moral opinions, discloses itself to casual reading. The “esoteric” teaching, which departs from religious and moral orthodoxy, can be grasped only through a much more careful reading. Philosophers adopt this form of writing to communicate heterodox ideas while protecting themselves from persecution.

Ultimately, Strauss’s claim that classical political philosophy is superior to the modern variety boils down to praising esotericism over frankness. But esoteric writers can exist in any historical era, including our own. Indeed, for the Straussians at least, the “ancients” have already returned.

In my opinion, Strauss’s greatest contribution is the rediscovery of esotericism. In particular, his approach to reading the Platonic dialogues as dramas in which Plato’s message is conveyed by “deeds” as well as “speeches” has revolutionized Plato scholarship and is now accepted well beyond Straussian circles.

That said, Strauss’s own esoteric readings are deformed by his philosophical and religious prejudices. Strauss was an atheist, so he thought that no serious philosopher could be religious. All religious-sounding teachings must, therefore, be exoteric. Strauss was apparently some sort of Epicurean materialist, so he dismissed all forms of transcendent metaphysics from Plato’s theory of forms to Aristotle’s metaphysics to Maimonides’ argument for the existence of God as somehow exoteric, or as mere speculative exercises rather than earnest attempts to know transcendent truths. Strauss was apparently something of an amoralist, so he regarded any ethical teachings he encountered to be exoteric as well.

In short, Strauss projected his own Nietzschean nihilism, as well as his radical intellectual alienation from ordinary people onto the history of philosophy as the template of what one will discover when one decodes the “esoteric” teachings of the philosophers. These prejudices have been taken over by the Straussian school and applied, in more or less cookie cutter fashion, to the history of thought. As Gottfried puts it:

He [Strauss] and his disciples typically find the esoteric meaning of texts to entail beliefs they themselves consider rational and even beneficent. . . . If this cannot be determined at first glance, then we must look deeper, until we arrive at the desired coincidence of views. . . . Needless to say, the “hidden” views never turn out to be Christian heresies or any beliefs that would not accord with the prescribed rationalist worldview. A frequently heard joke about this “foreshortening” hermeneutic is that a properly read text for a Straussian would reveal that its author is probably a Jewish intellectual who resides in New York or Chicago. Being a person of moderation, the author, like his interpreter, would have attended synagogue services twice a year, on the High Holy Days—and then probably not in an Orthodox synagogue. (p. 99)

This is not to deny that there are genuine Straussian contributions to scholarship, but the best of them employ Strauss’s methods while rejecting his philosophical prejudices.

Throughout his book, Gottfried emphasizes the importance of Strauss’s Jewish identity, specifically the identity of a Jew in exile. And I have long thought that the radical alienation of the Straussian image of the philosopher goes well beyond ordinary intellectual detachment. It is the alienation of the exiled Jew from his host population. Strauss’s philosophers reject the “gods of the city,” constitute a community with strong bonds of solidarity, and engage in crypsis to protect themselves from persecution by the masses. But Strauss’s philosophers are no ordinary Jews in exile, for they seek to influence society by educating its leaders. The template of the Straussian philosopher is thus the “court Jew” who advises the rulers of his host society, phrasing his advice in terms of universal values and the common good, but working always to secure the interests of his tribe. Thus it is no aberration that the Straussians have spawned a whole series of neoconservative “court Jews,” like William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz, who do not just have ink on their fingers but blood up to their elbows.

Straussians make a great show of “piety” toward the great books. They have the face to claim that they understand texts exactly as the authors did, rejecting as “historicist” arrogance the idea of understanding an author better than he understood himself. In practice, however, Straussians turn the great philosophers of the past into sockpuppets spouting Strauss’s own views. As Gottfried remarks, “In the hands of his disciples, Strauss’s hermeneutic has become a means of demystifying the past, by turning ‘political philosophers’ into forerunners of the present age. One encounters in this less an affirmation of a permanent human nature than a graphic examples of Herbert Butterfield’s ‘Whig theory of history’” (p. 10).

Surely one cause of these Straussian misreadings is simple hermeneutic naïveté: they reject reflection on their own prejudices as “historicism,” thus they remain completely in their grip. But that is not the whole story. When a school of thought makes a trademark of praising dishonesty over frankness, one would be a fool to assume that “they know not what they do.”

Straussian interpretations have often been called “Talmudic” because of certain stylistic peculiarities, including their use of arithmetic. But the similarity is not just stylistic. Talmudism, like Straussianism, affects a great show of piety and intellectual rigor. But its aim is to reconcile human selfishness with divine law, to impose the interpreter’s agenda on the text, which is the height of impiety, intellectual dishonesty, and moral squalor. And if Talmudists are willing to do it to the Torah, Straussians are willing to do it to Plato as well. Beyond that, both Talmudism and Straussianism have elements of farce—as texts are bent to support preconceived conclusions—and of perversity, since the practitioners of the art applaud one another for their dialectical subtleties and their creation of complex arguments where simple ones will do.

Straussians like to posture as critics of postmodernism and political correctness, but in practice there is little difference. They merely sacrifice objective scholarship and intellectual freedom to a different political agenda. As with other academic movements, the pursuit of truth runs a distant third to individual advancement within the clique and collective advancement of its political agenda.

* * *

Throughout Gottfried’s book, I found myself saying “Yes, but . . .” Yes, Gottfried makes a powerful case against Straussianism. Yes, it functions as an intellectual cult corrupting higher education and national politics. Yes, the Straussian graduate students I encountered were smug, pompous, and clubbish. Yes, some of the Straussian professors I encountered really were engaged in cult-like indoctrination. But in all fairness, I have had a number of Straussian and quasi-Straussian teachers whom I greatly admire as scholars and human beings.

And, in the end, Strauss towers above his epigones. Over the last 25+ years, I have read all of Strauss’s published writings, many of them repeatedly. He has had an enormously positive influence on my intellectual life. More than any other writer, he has opened the books of both ancients and moderns to me, even though in the end I read them rather differently. (See my “Strauss on Persecution and the Art of Writing[14].”)

There are three areas in which I do not think Gottfried does Strauss justice.

First, Gottfried is correct to stress the abuses of Strauss’s hermeneutics. But these abuses to not invalidate the method. Gottfried shows no appreciation of the power of esotericism to reveal long-hidden dimensions of many ancient and modern thinkers.

Second, Gottfried is dismissive of the idea that Strauss’s engagement with Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Schmitt—and his evident knowledge of the broader Conservative Revolutionary milieu—indicates a real sympathy with far-Right identitarian politics. Simply repeating Strauss’s praise of liberal democracy cannot settle this question. The fact that Gottfried has written a fine book on Carl Schmitt proves that he is certainly competent to inquire further. (See my ongoing series on “Leo Strauss, the Conservative Revolution, and National Socialism,” Part 1[15], Part 2[16].)

Third, Gottfried is a historicist, Strauss an anti-historicist. Until the question of historicism is settled, a lot of Gottried’s criticisms are question-begging. Yet a serious engagement with historicism falls outside the scope of Gottfried’s book.

But all that is merely to say: Paul Gottfried’s Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America is that rarest of achievements: an academic book that one wishes were longer.

[4] Cloaked in Virtue: Unveiling Leo Strauss and the Rhetoric of American Foreign Policy: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415950902/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0415950902&linkCode=as2&tag=countercurren-20

[9] The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/140396954X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=140396954X&linkCode=as2&tag=countercurren-20

[10] The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226645479/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0226645479&linkCode=as2&tag=countercurren-20

[11] Natural Rights and the New Republicanism: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691059705/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0691059705&linkCode=as2&tag=countercurren-20

[12] The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691114722/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0691114722&linkCode=as2&tag=countercurren-20

[13] The Myth of American Individualism: The Protestant Origins of American Political Thought: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691029121/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0691029121&linkCode=as2&tag=countercurren-20

[14] Strauss on Persecution and the Art of Writing: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/01/strauss-on-persecution-the-art-of-writing/

mercredi, 14 novembre 2012

Indian Summer of the Neocons

The irresistible appeal of attacking Iran

Gulf War III: These ladies have an intuitive grasp of American foreign policy.

Sometimes empires just die, but often they have one last spurt before they go, and more often than not the spurt is all part of the dying. A good analogy is the Indian Summer, a period of unexpectedly warm weather that appears to turn the tide of approaching Winter. Less astute minds are sure to mistake this as proof of eternal summer and get frostbitten later. Those believing in the permanence of American hegemony are in for a similar nasty surprise, especially as in the coming years we are going to see the reassertion once again of American power.

This last hurrah won’t have the same post-9-11 naivety about turning everyone into "instant Americans" by giving them “democracy,” “freedom,” and cell phones over the craters of their bombed-out homes; even though that shrill note will probably continue to resonate through the propaganda. No, the new Neocons who will further this policy will be motivated much more by a cynical sense of realpolitik, realfinanz, and the increasingly jarring clatter of the gears of the machine that once smoothly ran the world.

It is not particularly important who wins the Presidential election today. Romney is a better fit with the dynamic of a late season assertion of American power; Obama a better fit with the economic decline powering it. Whoever is elected President, we will see a similar trajectory, whereby the hegemonic power of America will be asserted not as a burgeoning of true, broad-based power as it was in the post-WWII period, but instead as a flashy gesture disguising frailty and ultimate collapse.

Fall Guy

The crucible for this last act of overextended power will of course be Iran, the perfect fall guy because you just know they are not going to vary their route – their route being the one that leads towards a nuclear capability to balance that of Israel. Right on schedule, just when Uncle Sam wants to remind the world of what he looked like 50 years ago with his shirt off, the Iranians can be relied on to provide a convenient casus belli, especially if you have a few experts and a pet media to help refine the evidence and airbrush the fact that Israel and Pakistan have no business owning nukes either.

There is a tendency to view the coming war with Iran too narrowly. It is typically presented as an issue of security for Israel with a side order of protecting the free flow of Gulf oil and therefore that panacea of all dreams, the global economy. The security of the cute little tyrannies that dot the southern shore of the Gulf also gets the occasional mention. The real issue however is the maintenance of US power vis-à-vis its major global rivals set against a general background of its decline.

Riddled with flaws and weaknesses that are only getting worse, America is the yesterday man of tomorrow, but at least today the country still has some killer assets – and I don’t just mean its drones (either of the media or aeronautical variety).

The growth of America’s weaknesses means that its assets can no longer be kept on the shelf to exert their silent and secret power, but must now be vigorously milked for all they are worth. This is what will determine American foreign policy in the coming years, and impel it into inevitable war.

First the weaknesses: America is not a country in the conventional sense. This means it is held together artificially and mainly through bribery. Ultimately this means imports from China and elsewhere. This weakness is enshrined in the shape of the US economy. Modern Americans are incapable of enduring a fraction of the hardship, discipline, and endurance which workers in China, Japan, or even parts of Europe are capable of. This means that America is fighting a natural tendency to decline to levels of poverty where it can develop these traits again, but such a decline would inevitably rip the country apart. So, the inevitable must not be allowed to happen, and the only way to stop this is with magic money. But magic money is like the emperor with no clothes. Sooner or later the inconvenient child is bound to point the finger, and spark off the mass perception of nudity. Already the Emperor has unfastened his top button and unzipped his fly.

Another important weakness that America has is the power of the Jewish or Zionist lobby, supplemented by the religious right. This is a problem for two reasons. First it leads to unnecessary military involvements – both Afghanistan and Iraq can be laid at the door of this unholy relationship. Secondly, the anti-US sentiments of the Islamic world threaten to undermine the status of a dollar. Recent years have seen moves to decouple oil rich economies from the petro-dollar. The existence of a viable alternative world reserve currency in the Euro makes these dangers very real. And later something even better may come along.

Unused Assets

Now its strengths: America’s main strength has always been its position, a large secure continental landmass with unhindered access to the two largest oceans. This has made it the ideal country to carry out Alfred Mahan’s vision of world hegemony through sea power, something it has improved on by bottling up other major continental powers through its alliances with Japan and Britain, its two unsinkable aircraft carriers. Much of the Chinese anger directed at Japan recently over the issue of the insignificant Senkaku rocks is provoked by the way that US allies like Japan and Taiwan effectively serve as a fleet of blockading ships. More than this, China’s vast thirst for oil can only be quenched with supplies from the Middle East and Africa that America can easily cut off anytime it chooses. The main goal of Chinese foreign policy is to overcome this strategic weakness.

Secondly, although America is a major oil importer itself, it is relatively self-sufficient and secure in this respect compared to other major powers. Part of this is because it is now mainly a consumer economy rather than an industrial one. Also, in recent years domestic oil production has boomed to the point where the US is now tipped to overtake even Saudi Arabia as the biggest oil producer. A good conspiracy theorist could make much of this surprising revelation – almost as if a major Gulf war has been in the offing for the past few years of rising production.

A third strength that America has is its political and economic unity. Although the economy has major and even terminal flaws, the fact that it is united is a clear strength, especially with regard to the Eurozone, which is struggling in the no-man’s land between monetary union and deeper economic union during an economically difficult period.

A fourth strength is the US’s ability to project power. Although the campaign in Afghanistan in particular has revealed the limitations of US military power against Fourth Generation Warfare, the US is still able to control much of the world’s airspace and sea lanes. Even though it would be defeated if it entered certain of the 'houses' in the 'global village,' it still controls most of the streets between those houses.

This also gives the US the glamour of Superpower status that helps to sustain the perceived value of the dollar against inflationary economic policies, and so helps the machinery of domestic bribery on which unity and everything else depends.

These strengths, it should be noted, really come into their own when set against the weaknesses of America’s main rivals for global power, namely China and the EU, whose strengths, by the way, are equally potent when set against America’s weaknesses. These strengths and weaknesses can be summarized as follows:

US weaknesses vis-à-vis its rivals

Ethnic disunity and the financial costs this brings (vs. China/ to a lesser extent the EU)Lack of toughness and discipline of its people (vs. China/ to a lesser extent the EU)Reliance on debt-financed spending (vs. China/ to a lesser extent the EU)Resistance to the dollar caused by pro-Israel foreign policy (vs. the EU)

US strengths vis-à-vis its rivals

Military power projection and global positioning (vs. China/ to a lesser extent Russia)Relative energy independence (vs. China and the EU)Political and economic unity (vs. the EU)Superpower status (vs. China/ to a lesser extent the EU)

There is a kind of negative complementariness between America’s strengths and those of its rivals. If Europe and China are allowed to strengthen, the US will weaken by a similar amount.

For example, if the Eurozone is allowed to recover and consolidate its monetary and economic union this will provide the basis for an alternative reserve currency that would not only be popular with Islamic countries but also China and Russia, keen to see America weakened. Also, any weakening in America’s power projection and global positioning would create a vacuum that, in the Western Pacific, would be filled by China, which is keen to protect and control the sea lanes it depends on. Such a weakening of US prestige would also undermine the power of the dollar and lead to a vicious cycle.

These factors create the machinery, which, if worked one way, leads to the collapse of American Imperial power, but if worked the other, offers the possibility of hamstringing America’s opponents and extending US power for a few more decades.

If America was capable of slow and gentle decline as pre-multicultural Britain was, it might be easy to accept the end of the American Imperium, but the ending of Empire is also likely to have an enormous economic and social cost, with the essential falsity of the present economy being revealed, a process that would effectively tear the nation apart.

The unacceptable nature of such a fate provides the impulse for America to move the other way, whoever gets elected today; which leads us back to the prospect of war with Iran.

Iran having nuclear weapons only matters to the USA because it matters to Israel, as the Iranians would be no more likely to nuke anything than Israel. But Iran’s nuclear ambitions provide a convenient casus belli that can be sold to the unwarlike, consumerist masses, and which would allow America to capitalize on its strengths relative to its main rivals.

The nature of such a war would be largely confined to the skies with some peripheral naval and land operations. The war aim would be to destroy Iran’s air force and nuclear research capabilities. The war, however, would actually be directed at other powers, with Iran serving the role of surrogate enemy.

It would interrupt oil supplies possibly for weeks or even months to a degree which the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq never did. While post-election America would suffer from the resultant spike in oil prices, it would bear up a lot better than either China or the EU. The crisis would lead to a short period of intense economic dislocation as oil prices shot up and businesses closed down, at least temporarily. This would send a sharp signal to China that America controlled its sea lanes and oil supply. It would also turn one of China's strengths – the hard-working self-reliance of its population – into a weakness with sudden unemployment possibly feeding into public unrest. Furthermore it would also turn an American weakness – its underclass-bribing welfare system – into a strength.

In the Eurozone a sudden economic crisis like this would likely create enormous strains on an already fragile and unbalanced system, causing sharp increases in government borrowing costs for some nations, and possibly seeing countries like Greece and Spain exiting the Euro, or even new countries emerging like Catalonia or Northern Italy. This picture of confusion and division would further diminish the status of the Euro as a rival world currency to the dollar. Meanwhile the “flight to safety” caused by the war would strengthen the dollar.

The Mighty Donut

While a war against Iran serves a useful local goal for America’s Middle Eastern allies, it also has clear benefits for America’s global position, on which its domestic economy depends. Peace makes the world focus on the hole in the American donut; war makes it focus instead on the doughy ring.

There is a kind of impersonal necessity at work, so forget which telegenic narcissistic autocue-reading sociopath is riding the presidential golf buggy.

Failing empires cannot afford the luxury of unutilized assets because this makes these assets effectively a punitive tax on that empire, one that its rivals do not share. America’s control of the seas and air is more than worthless in a world that is entirely peaceful; it is debilitating. It’s all hole and no donut!

To capitalize on these assets a certain amount of chaos is needed. The war against Iran and its repercussions for China and Europe, America’s real rivals, provides a nice, measured degree of this. For these reasons, limited war and a period of reassertion of American power is extremely likely.

But what will be the unintended consequences of this? In the case of Europe, further economic dislocation can only be good news for the continent’s nationalists. While for China and Russia, the exercise of US power will only impel them to strengthen their alliance and develop their ability to project power. There will also be attempts to draw Japan away.

The consequences in the Middle East will be more complex, but America’s blatant use of power for the benefit of Israel and the Gulf states will create a deep animus that may serve to unite Sunnis and Shiites against their common enemy. In other words, short-term gains in American power will be paid for through long-term losses.

jeudi, 28 octobre 2010

Red Velvet

The Neocons' New Coalition Partners

Richard Spencer’s references to Alex Knepper and his erotic activities while working as David Frum’s assistant bring up what is not an isolated embarrassment. It betokens what may be a widening problem for the neoconservative camp and given the influence of the neoconservatives, for the entire authorized Right. (Fortunately our side will not be involved, since we have no more investment in the present conservative movement than we do in the Obama administration.) It is highly doubtful that Knepper’s solicitation of sexual favors, “posting many pieces on a chat site for gay teens,” began the day before yesterday. Presumably there was a cover-up going on for a while, that is, as long as Frum could keep Alex’s critics at bay. Finally despite his value as a gutter journalist, Knepper became too much of a liability to be kept any longer (pardon the double entendre), and so Frum gave him the heave ho with expressions of “regret and remorse.”

I do recall a time when those who stupidly or opportunistically tried to see the good side of their new masters assured me that the ascending neocons were “serious about family issues.” They might have sounded like a cross between Trotsky and Ariel Sharon on foreign policy; and they might have drooled incessantly over Latino immigration, the Civil Rights Act, and the memories of their anti-Stalinist Marxist favs. But when family issues came up, one could supposedly count on them. This may have been the case for a few years, but by now the old story has worn thin. On family issues, the neocons are social-cultural leftists, and it is likely they’re going to drag all their dependents and lickspittles, and particularly their Christian stooges, in the same direction.

The neoconservatives have had a cozy relation with gays for some time, a truth that can be ascertained by looking at the staff of New Criterion, the catamites of Allan Bloom, and many neocon friendships in the New York-Washington Corridor. This however is no reason to ascribe ideological positions to those who feel comfortable around gays. De gustibus non disputandum! And one can always point to the fact that truer conservatives in an earlier period showed the same erotic propensities and were often exposed by the Left for their indiscretions.

The difference between then and now however is that none of these earlier homosexual conservatives or their well-wishers went around legitimating alternative lifestyles. It was simply assumed that individuals, including conservatives who thought of themselves as Christians, had their failings; and it was they who would have to cope with such flaws as idiosyncratic sexual preferences. But since the early 1990s, when the Wall Street Journal began bashing Buchanan for insulting the “San Francisco Democrats,” which was taken as a coded reference to gays, the neocon camp has been keen on homosexual rights, even pushing in some well-publicized instances the institution of gay marriage.

Jonah Goldberg, David Frum, and John Podhoretz are only three of the more prominent advocates in the “conservative” communion of extending marriage to gays. And for the last ten days, we’ve been treated to one tirade after the other against New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino, for failing to show sufficient respect for Gay Pride parades. Paladino’s remark before a gathering of Hasidic Rabbis in Brooklyn that they should not “allow their children to be brainwashed” by those who treat homosexual relations as a norm, was perfectly appropriate. Such brainwashing goes on in our public schools incessantly; and I’m sure that Frederic Dicker of the New York Post, Charles Krauthammer on FOX, and other neocon talking heads know what Paladino said is directly related to reality.

But he is clearly not on the same page with Human Events’s “conservative of the year” in 2009, Dick Cheney. Unlike the scorned Paladino, Cheney is passionately in favor of gay marriage and showcases his lesbian daughter. While Cheney’s value as a “conservative” has more to do with his foreign policy belligerence than with his conception of marriage, indisputably his work as a gay activist has not damaged his “conservative” image. By contrast, the spunky Italian hard hat Paladino is being savaged night and day by neocons for taking the opposite position.

Earlier in the year, when every neocon celebrity came out enthusiastically for Obama’s concession to the social Left, to get rid of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military, I naively assumed that the reason was the one I heard Krauthammer give: “We’re going to need the military and so why exclude anyone who wants to serve on the basis of sexual preference.” I won’t get into the arguments that could be marshaled on the other side, for example, about gay officers trying to extract favors from those with lower ranks. But presumably if I thought like a neocon, that the primary mission of the U.S. is to get repeatedly into military crusades for democracy, I might have seen Krauthammer’s point.

Unfortunately, by now the neocons, and especially the children of the founding fathers, seem to be intent on accommodating gays, that is, people they’re more likely to run into in Starbucks than their well-wishers who live in fly-over country. And I don’t blame the neocons for preferring sexually ambiguous Jewish publicists whom they meet in their own social world to the cognitively deprived goyim who hang on their every word. I might prefer the company of urbane metrosexuals to those fools who weep over Glenn Beck’s incoherent encomia to MLK.

My question is what will happen when the latest neocon move to the left becomes an authorized position in their movement. Will those who depend on neocon favors go along with the move or will there be some opposition? My prediction is as follows. The drones will fall into line, with their usual rhetorical dishonesty. Just as in the case of the transformation of the Reverend Dr. King, from a quasi-Marxist philanderer and crass plagiarizer into a conservative theologian and Augustinian Christian, gay marriage will become a new exemplification of “family values.” There is no way one could do verbal justice to the sleaziness of kowtowing movement conservatives. I still vividly recall the way The Gambler, Bill Bennett, came out for hyper-Zionist Lieberman for vice-president in 2008, after having devoted years of his life to inveighing against abortion. Supposedly Lieberman, who voted for late-term abortion, was good on “democratic values” and therefore deserved to be president. Perhaps Bennett’s sponsors threw him payola for this highly publicized endorsement.

The most breath-taking example of servility toward the neocon master class that I’ve encountered came in a book of essays by a minor art critic dealing with postmodernist academics. The book treated the violently anti-Western, anti-Christian, and anti-rational ideas of three professors at prestigious universities, all of whom, not incidentally, had conspicuously Russian Jewish names. Although the Jewish backgrounds of these postmodernists may not tell everything about their intellectual journeys, such biographical data is certainly relevant for understanding them. American Jews, like American Irish, are disproportionately on the left but the fact that the Jews go disproportionately into the academic profession may have something to do with the leftist orientation of universities. Moreover, the attraction to postmodernism, as a vehicle for deconstructing a culture that one finds oppressive to one’s ethnic group, would be understandable in a group that feels rightly or wrongly marginalized in a Christian society.

There are certainly ways of expressing this self-evident connection between leftwing postmodernism and Jewish alienation without being unduly offensive. But the author in question had no desire to bring up a taboo subject, which might have cost him a cushy post in the neocon empire. Instead he devoted the last part of his book to beating up on German straw men, which is a favorite neocon pastime, perhaps best exemplified by Alan Bloom’s rant against “the German connection” in The Closing of the American Mind.Apparently recognizably Jewish representatives of leftwing postmodernism had been reading too much Martin Heidegger and were being corrupted by the same ideas that led to the Holocaust.

Now I for one admire Heidegger’s work and, presumably unlike our art critic, I have read his Sein and Zeit several times with growing admiration. I could also never imagine myself believing any of the trash the author in question attributes to Heidegger’s philosophy of being; and I’m not sure it’s even there. And I doubt he believes his other subjects picked up their subversive thinking (or anti-thinking) from Heideggerian ontology. The neocon art critic is obviously trying to kill two birds with one stone, both aimed at pleasing his masters, savaging the goddamned Krauts, who were once ruled by Hitler, and stripping Jewish leftists of any significant Jewish association. Those who play such abject games should have no trouble recognizing gay parades and gay marriage as paradigmatic “family values.” They will be depicted as the newest stage of the Civil Rights revolution, which was a “conservative” event from Selma through Stonewall.

Paul Gottfried has spent the last thirty years writing books and generating hostility among authorized media-approved conservatives. His most recent work is his autobiography Encounters; and he is currently preparing a long study of Leo Strauss and his disciples. His works sell better in Rumanian, Spanish,Russian and German translations than they do in the original English, and particularly in the Beltway. Until his retirement two years hence, he will continue to be Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, PA.